3 ms·
Why are you giving Google the benefit of the doubt, but not to the employee? Do you have more details about the situation beyond that letter Google sent out, or
by bogwog 7y ago
Why are you giving Google the benefit of the doubt, but not to the employee? Do you have more details about the situation beyond that letter Google sent out, or are you just trusting Google by default because...well, I can't imagine why.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoBecause Bloomberg asked at least one of the fired employees for comment, and she would not comment even to deny Google's story.
- bogwog 7y agoSo? That doesn't mean they're guilty. There are many reasons why they wouldn't want to give a comment. Maybe they're planning a lawsuit and their lawyer told them to keep quiet.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoThere are many reasons why Google wouldn't want to give a comment too, but they did it anyway. I'm not saying I know for a fact they're guilty. I have no objections to anyone who wants to withhold judgment. But I don't think it's reasonable to look at a clear, unrefuted accusation of misconduct and say "well I don't trust Google".
- tanderson92 7y agoIs it unreasonable because google has never before done things untrustworthy with regards to their employees? https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jobs-settlement-20150903-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jo... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/11/google-executive-payout-harassment-amit-singhal https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/11/google-ex...
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoIt's unreasonable to decide that, because Google has done bad things in the past, every single thing they say is necessarily a lie.
- tanderson92 7y agoThat is not what 'distrust' means.
- dwild 7y ago> There are many reasons why Google wouldn't want to give a comment too, but they did it anyway. Which only show that Google has more to win by giving a comment than if they didn't. That could show that steering the public opinion is more beneficial to them than what may follow. > I don't think it's reasonable to look at a clear They clearly mentioned "including personal matters such as 1:1s, medical appointments and family activities". After reading the comment and understanding that they actually just subscribed to the work calendars of theses peoples, that do happens to put personal activities there. They made it seems like their goals was to follow their personal activities, which more likely wasn't. It made me realize how disingenuous their memo was and wasn't made to show the truth but to smear them. This is why I don't trust them in this situation. Is this reasonable? I want to add that not trusting Google in this situation doesn't means I do trust the employee that got fired. As you said, they gave no response, thus I have nothing to use to either trust them, or not.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoAgain, I have no objection to the position that we shouldn't trust either side and have no idea what really happened. But it doesn't sound like that's the position you're taking; you mentioned 2 sentences earlier that you've concluded Google's statement was a disingenuous smear campaign.
- dwild 7y agoI came to a conclusion based on what Google said. I explained how I came to that conclusion in detail too. You makes it seems like my position is wrong, can you details that a bit more? You may have misunderstood the last paragraph, where I say that I don't know if I can trust the employees yet either, I wasn't talking about Google, that was explained in the first part of the comment.
- isoskeles 7y agoBecause the actions described are unsurprising for these types of people (antagonistic people who write unhinged stuff on twitter, refer to their employer as "evil", and so on).